Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1060 (TS)

Kanneboina Naga Raju v. Chanumolu Nageswara Rao

2025-09-22

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’) aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 30.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2015 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the case relating to Atrocities against women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with costs and interest @16% per annum from the date of accident till realization. 3. On 26.08.2013 at about 00:00 hours, the claimant (injured) who is a cleaner came to Kothagudem with coal load in tipper bearing No.AP-20-TC-2455 from Sathupally and the driver stopped in serial to unload coal at Anandhkhan Pumping, meanwhile, he got down and stood by the side of lorry and the driver suddenly moved the lorry in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to which the claimant fell down and sustained fracture of left foot, comminuted fracture of both bones of left leg. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem in 108 Ambulance and later he was shifted to Krishna Prasad Hospital, Kothagudem and again as his condition was serious he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. 4. On receipt of complaint, the Police Kothagudem-I Town registered a case in Crime No.243/2013 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the lorry tipper. Prior to the accident the claimant was hale and healthy and aged about 23 years and he is working as cleaner and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day towards batta. He used to contribute his earnings for maintenance of his family. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- for his treatment . Due to injuries, he is unable to stand properly and walk without walker. He suffered mental agony and hardship. Respondent No.1 is owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry tipper, as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. Respondent No.1 failed to appear before the Tribunal and he was ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit inter alia contending that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. 5. Respondent No.1 failed to appear before the Tribunal and he was ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit inter alia contending that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. It is stated that respondent No.2 denied the manner of accident as narrated in the petition and he also stated that the driver of lorry tipper was not holding driving licence at the time of accident and he was not qualified to possess such driving licence. He further stated that respondent No.1 willfully and knowingly handed over the lorry tipper to said driver and thereby contravened the provisions of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 and committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. He also denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant. He further stated that claimant claimed interest @16% per annum which is highly excessive and is contrary to Section 3 of the INTEREST ACT , 1978. He further stated that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant and claiming of compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- is excessive and exaggerated. Hence, prayed to dismiss petition against respondent No.2 with costs. 7. Respondent No.2 filed additional counter-affidavit when the claimant sought for enhancement of claim from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- wherein he denied entitlement of the compensation by the claimant. The compensation which the claimant is entitled by filing the additional written statement. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial: (i) Whether on 26.08.20, the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of lorry tipper bearing No.AP-20-TC-2456? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 was marked. 10. Having heard both the counsel and having considered the entire material placed on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tipper bearing No.AP-20-TC-2455 and held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-. Considering the income of the claimant and also the age and other material placed, making the respondents liable for payment of said compensation. 11. Considering the income of the claimant and also the age and other material placed, making the respondents liable for payment of said compensation. 11. Being unsatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant preferred the present appeal on the following among other grounds. (i) The learned Tribunal did not consider that the claimant sustained grievous injury on the left foot 10 x 2 x ½, 2) Comminuted fracture of both bones of left leg 3) Grade I Compound fracture of both bones of left leg, 4) Foot drop closed fracture proximal and distal phalyunx 5) Left great toe + middle Phalyunx 3 rd toe + closed fracture of distal phalyunx, 6) Right great toe and foot drop left, and multiple injuries all over the body. (ii) He further stated that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are Orthopaedic Surgeons, who deposed that the claimant was admitted on 05.09.2013 in the hospital and he was operated on 13.09.2013 and Ilizarov ring fixation was done and he was discharged on 23.09.2013. The claimant was walking with limp, but the Tribunal over looked and ignored the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, the learned Tribunal have awarded compensation without taking disability, income and relevant multiplier for the age of the claimant and it failed to calculate the compensation. (iii) The Tribunal also failed to assess the compensation without considering permanent disability and income of the claimant and failed to calculate the compensation according to law. The Tribunal roughly granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- only under pain and suffering without any cogent reason. (iv) The Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation roughly under the head of pain and suffering for the fractural grievous injuries sustained by the claimant without any basis and method and the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.28,500/- by considering three months only towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment instead of considering at least six months period for severe fractural injuries and hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 12. Heard Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri P.Harinath Guptha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondent No.2, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the appellant-claimant has made out any ground for enhancement of compensation and if so to what extent? (ii) To what relief? 13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondent No.2, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the appellant-claimant has made out any ground for enhancement of compensation and if so to what extent? (ii) To what relief? 14. Having heard contentions and rival contentions of both the parties, the main grievance of the claimant is that the learned Tribunal did not award just and fair compensation and did not consider the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are Orthopaedics. Admittedly, there is no denial about cross appeal preferred by the respondent-insurance company disputing the liability and also the compensation which is awarded to the claimant. The contention of the respondents is that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation, as such it does not require any interference and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and just compensation. 15. On perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the learned Judge has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation; Rs.3000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.1,07,460/- towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.28,500/- towards loss of earnings during treatment and accordingly in total, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- to the claimant. 16. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that it cannot get indulged in speed walking and finds difficulty while sitting on the floor and so the limping of the left leg considered to be permanent disability. He stated that the Doctors P.Ws.2 and 3, who treated the claimant also reiterated the same. But, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of amenities. He further submits that though the claimant sustained four injuries, no proper compensation was awarded for pain and suffering and compensation awarded under the said head is very less. Though the claimant claimed compensation towards conveyance, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- under the head of ‘transport to hospital’. 17. Admittedly, the said accident was occurred near Anandkhan CSP Pumping and initially the clamant shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem in 108 ambulance and later he was shifted to Krishna Prasad hospital, Kothagudem. Admittedly, the claimant sustained fracture injury to left foot and comminute fracture of both bones of left leg. Therefore, the injury sustained by the claimant is in respect of left foot. Admittedly, the claimant sustained fracture injury to left foot and comminute fracture of both bones of left leg. Therefore, the injury sustained by the claimant is in respect of left foot. Obviously in such cases, whenever the claimant need to visit the hospital for follow up treatment, from the hospital to his residence, he would have taken an auto or car which obviously he would incur certain amount. As seen from the award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses, which appears to be reasonable in the absence of any proof. 18. Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of ‘extra nourishment’ which can be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. 19. Further, coming to medical expenses, the learned Tribunal considering Exs.A.21, 22 and 23, which are medical bills and Physiotherapy has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,07,460/- under the head of ‘medical expenses’ so also awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, which are also according to this Court appear to be reasonable. 20. As far as ‘loss of earnings’ is concerned, according to the claimant he is aged about 23 years and working as Cleaner and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day towards batta. This Court do not see any error committed in taking the income @ Rs.9,500/- per month at the time of bed rest and to that effect calculated the loss of earnings of the claimant. Thus, it is clear that the claimant was getting income of Rs.9,500/- per month. No doubt, the claimant did not produce any document to that effect. 21. In respect of loss of earnings, considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 x 3 months) under the head of loss of earnings which appears to be very meagre. Hence, considering the medical record and evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the injuries sustained, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken six (6) months as bed rest for the reasons stated by P.W.1 that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the left leg of the claimant was limping further the medical record and also the follow up medical treatment taken by the claimant for more than six months, and injuries sustained being grievous injuries and so also surgery being done. Therefore, this Court opined that the loss of earnings of the claimant can be taken for a period of six months. Thus taking the same into consideration the loss of earnings of the claimant would come to Rs.57,000/- (Rs.9500 x 6) which are reasonable and proper. 22. Though it is contended by claimant that due to fracture of left leg, he was limping, admittedly, there was surgery to the leg done. On perusal of evidence P.Ws.2 and 3 it is contended that P.W.2 that the claimant said to have knee fixation (stiff) ankle and joint was limping. Though it is contended that limp of left leg considered to be deformity the claimant cannot get speed walk while sitting on the floor and so the limping of the left leg considered to be permanent disability. But, no proper assessment as to what is the percentage of the disability sustained so as to decide percentage of the functional disability sustained by the claimant for awarding compensation to that effect. As such, the Tribunal did not choose to award any compensation under the head of permanent disability. This Court is also of opinion that in the absence of any such certificate mentioning the percentage of the disability, whether it is permanent or partial, the question of awarding compensation for loss of future earnings under the head of permanent disability dos not arise. As such, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be found fault. 23. As the claimant has no grievance on other amounts awarded by the Tribunal, I hold that the claimant would be entitled for the following additional amounts in addition to the amounts which are already awarded by the learned Tribunal. Sl.No. Description Amount award by the Tribunal Rs. Additional Amount awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Pain and suffering 50,000 2. Transportation charges 5,000 3. Loss earnings 28,500 57,000 4. Extra nourishment 3,000 5,000 5. Medical Bills 1,07,460 Total 1,93,960-00 62,000-00 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.2,55,960/- (Rs.1,93,960 + Rs.62,000) (Rupees Two lakhs fifty five thousand nine hundred and sixty only) to the appellant-claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant- claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.